Schumer rips 'MAGA' Supreme Court after 9-0 vote on EPA waters rule

[NorthernHawkeye]

Schumer would fit in well on this board.

Schumer rips 'MAGA' Supreme Court after 9-0 vote on EPA waters rule

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday slammed a Supreme Court decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate waters of the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Chishawk1425]

Schumer would fit in well on this board.

Schumer rips 'MAGA' Supreme Court after 9-0 vote on EPA waters rule

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday slammed a Supreme Court decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate waters of the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

 

[The Tradition]

Again, as I said in the other thread, the regulators overreached. In the EPA's opinion, every puddle and drainage ditch is a "wetland." The property owners who brought this case went through hell and were never able to build anything on their land.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I don't disagree with this ruling.

The court said the federal government must define WOTUS as a water source with a "continuous surface connection" to major bodies of water.

Is it within the courts powers to tell Congress how it has to write its policies? I would think that the EPA has the authority to set new policy after this case on their own and the SCOTUS should only wait on the next lawsuit and if not up to "constitutionality" (for whatever that is worth) and repeat its decision over and over until the EPA gets it correct.

 

[The Tradition]

I don't disagree with this ruling.

The court said the federal government must define WOTUS as a water source with a "continuous surface connection" to major bodies of water.

Is it within the courts powers to tell Congress how it has to write its policies? I would think that the EPA has the authority to set new policy after this case on their own and the SCOTUS should only wait on the next lawsuit and if not up to "constitutionality" (for whatever that is worth) and repeat its decision over and over until the EPA gets it correct.

No, that's not how it works.

CONGRESS should write a law that doesn't give the EPA carte blanche to run roughshod over property rights.

 

[DogBoyRy]

View embedded media

As they say in your former military
NIN er - ZEro.

 

[Kelsers]

No, that's not how it works.

CONGRESS should write a law that doesn't give the EPA carte blanche to run roughshod over property rights.

So more micromanagement? Gotcha

 

[The Tradition]

So more micromanagement? Gotcha

Congress has stopped writing defined legislation. They're giving all the dirty work to the regulatory agencies to write the actual policies with very little guidance in the actual text of the law.

It's a big problem today.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Congress has stopped writing defined legislation. They're giving all the dirty work to the regulatory agencies to write the actual policies with very little guidance in the actual text of the law.

It's a big problem today.

I don't disagree with that. My question is about the SCOTUS actions in this case.

 

[The Tradition]

I don't disagree with that. My question is about the SCOTUS actions in this case.

The property owners bought land on a lake and have been prevented from building their dream home over the terms of THREE presidents, and also suffered fines from the EPA.

The regulators are out of control.